On 09-06-16, 14:21, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 09-06-16, 01:45, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> From: Rafael J. Wysocki
> >>
> >> There's no reason for gov_cancel_work() to exist at all, as it only
> >> has one caller and the only thing don
On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 09-06-16, 01:45, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki
>>
>> There's no reason for gov_cancel_work() to exist at all, as it only
>> has one caller and the only thing done by that caller is to invoke
>> gov_cancel_work().
>>
>>
On 09-06-16, 01:45, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki
>
> There's no reason for gov_cancel_work() to exist at all, as it only
> has one caller and the only thing done by that caller is to invoke
> gov_cancel_work().
>
> Accordingly, drop gov_cancel_work() and move its contents t
From: Rafael J. Wysocki
There's no reason for gov_cancel_work() to exist at all, as it only
has one caller and the only thing done by that caller is to invoke
gov_cancel_work().
Accordingly, drop gov_cancel_work() and move its contents to the
caller.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki
---
drive
4 matches
Mail list logo